 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
Mars Connection  I've been looking at something on Mars that's much bigger than the 'face' which people have debated for years. I'm fascinated by the Tharsis plain, specifically Olympos Mons and a trio of mountains presumed to be volcanoes. They're huge, easily seen on any map of Mars. They are very prominent features, quite literally. Olympos Mons (Mount Olympus) is reportedly three times higher than Mount Everest here on Earth. (Interesting that the gravity on Mars is about one-third that of Earth.)  The four structures make a triangular configuration with the three equidistant points forming the base of an isosceles triangle, where the height line from the center of Olympos splits right through the center Tharsis mound. Also, the height of this triangle is almost exactly the same as the length of the base. This alignment and proportion seems extremely unlikely for a haphazard natural occurrence attributed to volcanic activity. Maybe a fault line could explain three volcanoes in a row. It would not explain their relationship to Olympos Mons, nor their own equal spacing.
I was immediately reminded of two other trios... The Tharsis trio, the peaks of the pyramids at Giza, and the stars in Orion's Belt... are ALL evenly spaced. Three things in a row may be easy to find, but three things equally spaced from each other is not so common. Of course, we know Giza was constructed, but just how 'natural' is it for three volcanic mountains on Mars to be aligned and equidistant, as well as the three brightest stars we identify as Orion's Belt? Of course, the Mars structures are much larger than the Giza trio, and Orion's Belt is larger still. All care was taken to make sure each image retained its original proportions. In other words, they were resized to be compared to each other, without distortion.   
Ascraeus, Pavonis, Arsia ~ Alnitak, Alnilam, Mintaka ~ Khufu, Khafre, Menkaure (The pyramids are alternately called: Cheops, Chephren, Mycerinus) (Orion's Belt is turned upsidedown, as is done in other comparisons to Giza) Note that in each case, the top and middle structures are nearly the same size, but the middle one is slightly smaller. In the case of the stars and the pyramids, the third is obviously very much smaller than the other two. This may be the case for the third mons on Mars as well. It's blown out much more, having a caldera exceedingly larger than the other two. While it's difficult to know its original size, if it's about the same size -after- spreading, it would be reasonable to say that it was much smaller than the other two before, ala the Menkaure pyramid and the star Mintaka. Arsia Mons certainly appears to be shorter and flatter than Ascraeus or Pavonis. Furthermore, the northernmost and middle 'volcanoes' would be the first volcanoes or mountains I have ever seen with square corners. The middle one especially looks like a pyramid which has sagged or fallen to disrepair, but that could happen over tens of thousands of years, eh? Or let's say, in the event of a systematic blowout? Even so, the corners, the square shape, is still evident, particularly for Pavonis. 
Ascraeus, Pavonis, Arsia Mons on the Tharsis plain of Mars It also appears, at least from the first two mons, that they are oriented the same way. While the pyramids of Giza are all oriented against a vertical or north-south line, the mons on Mars are oriented on approximately a 45° angle. Thus the first two have a rather diamond-shape appearance. The third is just too collapsed to tell. I looked again at the three groups, only this time with reference boxes. Since the stars are circular, I just used the same boxes as for the Mars mons. I was not surprised when I did not have to make adjustments. The stars were already centered in the boxes when I applied the overlay. 
Trio on Mars ~~~ Orion's Belt ~~~ Trio at Giza ...and boxes for all three (the black has overlaid the white and the blue represents the Giza pyramids) The center pyramid at Giza is indeed off-shifted just a bit. Does this invalidate the connection? Or is it simply that Orion looks a little different from the surface of Earth than from Mars? Now, what does all of this mean? Firstly, I would intuitively guess that if the Mars configuration is matched to Orion's Belt more perfectly, then it is surely the original. By that I mean that the Giza configuration may have been modeled after it and an adjust had to be made for the view of Orion's Belt. Now, without any further evidence, I will relay a theory which was actually brought up by a close friend who feels significantly more connected with Mars. It is his understanding that Mars was once a base of operations for the 'project' which established Atlantis here on Earth, or at least the roots of Atlantis. In fact, it was a base from which our Solar System was altered and conditions were made more favorable for life on Earth. We've discussed this quite a bit and the more we think about it, the more information comes to light. Our understanding is this: Mars had water, on the surface and within the planet, however, it has never had the dense core which is the basis for Earth's natural energy dynamo, making excellent use of the energy feed from the Sun. Similarly, Mars was too far away from the Sun to be a resonable generator, even if it had the proper density and core. Also, Mars could not establish a sufficient and stable atmosphere to further protect and nourish the surface for carbon-based life. There were in fact several other factors which did not favor Mars, yet it was reasonably located for use as a temporary base, near the heart of the orbits around the Sun. It was habitable, but not easily. To be honest, the Earth was a pearl to begin with. It stood out among the other inhabitants of the Solar System. It was beautiful to look upon and possessed of rare qualities. Before any work began, there had been a large planet between Mars and Jupiter. It was also rather benign, except for size and a wealth of raw minerals which were not developing due to insufficient water, sunlight, rotation, etc. The first stage was to blow up this 5th planet. Naturally, the main force of the blast was aimed away from the inner planets, although the resulting scatter went in all directions. The destruction of the 5th planet obviously created the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, as well as significantly adjusting the orbits of all other bodies in the system. The 'eye' of Jupiter was formed due to an impact from this dissemination. Finer debris was caught in Jupiter's atmosphere or flung further out into Saturn's rings. Also, many rogue asteroids (comets), being larger and carrying more momentum, escaped to pull of interim objects until they fell into their own orbits. Once the fallout from this initial action had calmed down, then the base was established on Mars. There were many assessments of Earth's condition, and further shipments were directed from the asteroid belt to adjust the mineral levels on Earth's surface. The raw material of the destroyed planet was used to 'seed' the Earth with a greater variety and quantity of base minerals. Some terraforming was accomplished in this way too, primarily to open waterways to let the current on the sphere flow more evenly. Initially, the dust generated by these early impacts also helped set up a more firm atmosphere, which would evenfully clear itself out, IF there was sufficient water available. To ensure this and further fuel support for life on the 3rd planet, water was shipped from Mars. Mars images from http://keepernsol.com/Public/Download/Marsmap.jpg Next in Sequence Select From Menu |
 |
|
|
|||
 uicksilver
|
|